Posted on 09/03/2011 8:11:58 AM PDT by bayouranger
Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Connecticut chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said Thursday that the Obama administration has refused to use the term “violent Islamist extremism,” arguing that the White House’s overly cautious word parsing constitutes a refusal to ”speak honestly.”
Sen. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, also said this makes the global fight against Islamic terrorism “harder” for the United States.
Lieberman focused his criticism on a recent report issued by the administration, titled “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States,” saying that it “suffers from several significant weaknesses.”
“The administration still refuses to call our enemy in this war by its proper name — violent Islamist extremism. You could find names that are comparable to that but not the ones that the administration continues to use, which are ‘violent extremism,’” Lieberman explained in a speech at the National Press Club sponsored by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
islam is islam.
There's no "extreme", "moderate" or "peaceful" part to islam.
prediction..Lieberman will endorse, and campaign for, whomever is the GOP nominee. Lieberman will also be the NEXT US ambassador to Israel..
Blind squirrel, nut. Broken clock, right. Etc.
The reference is not to all but to a few.
Islam is all and not part of his statement. Islamist, violent Islamist, discriminates between those who are violent and those who are not.
One more thought.
The Obama administration can not discriminate on Islam because to do so would mean it would need to do the same for black America and to destroy the monolithic image of Black Culture that in reality does not exist.
Thanks bayouranger.
A few...like 100 million or more...got it!
That settles it.
Islam stands for destruction.
The mudslime pResident does not want to offend his brethren.
Whoa!
You’re telling me that they’re scared of destroying something that doesn’t exist & that “thing” is only part of the black community??????
I grew up within a black community and I’ve never heard anything remotely close to what you’re describing. Nothing.
“”those who are violent and those who are not.”
That’s the difference between Combat Units vs Combat Support Units.
They’re both on the same side, fighting to achieve the same objective.
At least that’s what I learned in the Army.
Homeland Security is an arm of the radical Democrat Party. The only 'terrorist' they're concerned with are white middle-aged Republicans - who are Tea Party members.
Here's a message for Homeland Security:
Of the 126 people indicted for being terrorists in the last two years. Every one of them was Muslim.
Not one was Christian.
Not one was a white middle-class, middle aged man.
NOT one was an upper class white woman ( as portrayed in a Homeland Security PSA).
NOT one was a lone wolf.
EVERY PERSON indicted for terrorism in the last two years was a Muslim.
Quit political witchhunts or you'll make Watergate look like child's play...( the MSM is starting to catch on...)
Even the reference to “Islamist extremism” is misleading and shows a misunderstanding about Islam.
Islam teaches that one who obeys Allah who dies while advancing and protecting Allah and his “prophet” will receive preferable treatment in the afterlife. “Jihad” is the “holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty” The more closely one reads the Quran the more many are convinced that they must indeed die while bringing death and destruction to unbelievers.
It should by now be very clear these people are not “extreme” in the sense of having an unsupportable reading of their own religious texts or of being outside of what a large minority of their fellow believers would accept.
It appears to me that Muslims we call “moderates” are just like Protestants who cannot seem to accept what the plain text of the Bible tells them to do. I can understand how offensive it might be to read in your sacred text how violently you must treat an unbeliever- that the world is divided up into places “at peace” (meaning under Islam) and places “at war” (meaning yet to be subjugated). But that is the sad truth about Islam.
In short, the phrase “violent Islamist extremism” is entirely redundant. “Islamist” means a person who is willing to commit any measure of violence in order to defend and advance his religion, and if he happens to die in the process, all the better. “Jihadist” means a person actively seeking to commit violent acts in the hopes of being killed while doing so.
We cannot fight an enemy if we refuse to accept the enemy’s motivations.
Well, I think there have been a couple of Earth First eco-terrorists sent to prison in the last four or five years. But I take your point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.